See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Tea partiers turn on GOP leadership
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/28157
Published: Oct 11, 2009
Author: n
Post Date: 2009-10-11 21:46:43 by gengis gandhi
Keywords: None
Views: 919
Comments: 96
Tea partiers turn on GOP leadership Politico Featured Topics: * Barack Obama George's Bottom Line on Tea Parties Play Video ABC News – George's Bottom Line on Tea Parties * Raw Video: Tea party protesters converge on D.C. Play Video Video:Raw Video: Tea party protesters converge on D.C. AP * Protestors Expected in Washington, D.C. Play Video Video:Protestors Expected in Washington, D.C. ABC News Alex Isenstadt Alex Isenstadt – Sun Oct 11, 8:00 am ET While the energy of the anti-tax and anti-Big Government tea party movement may yet haunt Democrats in 2010, the first order of business appears to be remaking the Republican Party. Whether it’s the loose confederation of Washington-oriented groups that have played an organizational role or the state-level activists who are channeling grass-roots anger into action back home, tea party forces are confronting the Republican establishment by backing insurgent conservatives and generating their own candidates — even if it means taking on GOP incumbents. “We will be a headache for anyone who believes the Constitution of the United States … isn’t to be protected,” said Dick Armey, chairman of the anti-tax and limited government advocacy group FreedomWorks, which helped plan and promote the tea parties, town hall protests and the September ‘Taxpayer March’ in Washington. “If you can’t take it seriously, we will look for places of other employment for you.” “We’re not a partisan organization, and I think many Republicans are disappointed we are not,” added Armey, a former GOP congressman. In Florida, where the national party has signaled its preference for centrist Gov. Charlie Crist in the GOP Senate primary, tea party activists are lining up behind former state House Speaker Marco Rubio in reaction to Crist’s public backing for President Barack Obama’s stimulus package. “We were very disappointed with Gov. Charlie Crist when he supported the stimulus, the bailout, and he appeared publicly with President Obama,” said Everett Wilkinson, a South Florida-based organizer for Tea Party Patriots. “The opposition comes from Crist’s support for the largest spending plan ever and the environmental policies he’s pushing on the American people.” Rubio has already made appearances at Florida tea parties, and protesters have been seen waving signs declaring, “Anybody but Charlie Crist.” He also has Armey’s endorsement, and Armey headlined a Dallas fundraiser for him several weeks ago. Wilkinson said that the tax status of his Florida-based group limits what it can do to assist Rubio in the August 2010 primary. But he said the organization would launch an aggressive get-out-the-vote operation and issue a report card grading each candidate appearing on the ballot. Tea party activists are also lining up behind challengers to GOP establishment-backed Senate candidates in Colorado and Connecticut. In California, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina — like Crist, another National Republican Senatorial Committee-favored Senate contender — is the target of tea party animus in her primary against conservative state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore. “My impression is that the support among tea partyers for DeVore is high,” said Mark Meckler, a California-based organizer for Tea Party Patriots. “I hear nothing but praise for the guy.” Tea party organizers say their resistance to Republican Party-backed primary candidates has much to do with what they perceive as the GOP’s stubborn insistence on embracing candidates who don’t abide by a small government, anti-tax conservative philosophy. “It’s an outgrowth of the frustration people have had with the Republican Party,” said Andrew Moylan, director of governmental affairs for the National Taxpayers Union, another group that has played a large role in organizing the tea party movement. “I think a lot of people have been angry at Republicans for betraying our trust.” “I think the GOP establishment has ignored their constituents and the feelings of their constituents for years,” added Meckler. It’s an unusual predicament for the Republican Party, since the conservative-oriented issues that animate Tea Party activists once seemed destined to make the movement a valuable auxiliary to the Republican Party. While there’s little evidence of tea party activist support for Democratic candidates, the specific notion of electing a GOP majority hasn’t ranked high on their agenda either. At the recent “Defending the American Dream Summit,” a conservative event held in Arlington, Va., a breakout session featuring tea party organizers saw panelists peppered with questions ranging from how to start up political action committees and 501(c)(3) organizations to whether it was necessary to hire lawyers. “Nothing is going to change unless we can get politicians elected who can implement fiscally conservative policies,” Teri Adams of the Philadelphia-based Independence Hall Tea Party Association, which will be launching a political arm, told those in attendance. In a handful of states, tea party activists have zeroed in on House Republican incumbents and have launched primary challenges in protest of their past support for the controversial Wall Street bank bailout. One of those activists, Canyon Clowdus, an Army veteran who is taking on third-term conservative Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), has blasted the incumbent for making “a horrible mistake” in voting for Troubled Asset Relief Program. “He has put a financial burden on my four children that will amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars each,” Clowdus says of Conaway on his campaign website. “I think it was a bad, bad political decision,” Armey said of the 34 Senate Republicans and 91 House Republicans who voted for the TARP bailout, “and if you talk to grass-roots activists, it has become a political test for them.” Moylan agreed that TARP is “really kind of the flash point that started all of this.” “People are paying attention and are willing to hold these people accountable,” he said. For some, supporting insurgent campaigns or waging primary bids just isn’t a strong enough signal to send to a Republican Party that has abandoned core conservative policies. Erick Erickson, founder and editor of the influential conservative blog RedState, has urged tea party activists to “put down the protest signs” and stage takeovers of local Republican parties. “Grass-roots activists need to start infiltrating the party,” said Erickson. “The only way to start getting [the establishment] back is to start pounding them with every fist we have.” Read More Stories from POLITICO
Poster Comment: yet another institution becomes irrelvant, this time, political parties.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 40.
#14. To: gengis gandhi, Eric Stratton, Flintlock, wbales, Jethro Tull, tom007, Horse (#0)
The GOP tried to hi jack the tea parties without really understanding what they were about. The GOP is about as blind as the left leaning media, if what you are doing isn't working, do more of it.
deleted
Can't argue against you.
I'm not impressed with the hypocrisy of the tea bag wans. It's just more Right wing fascist - you'll get freedom as long as you agree with us - crap. It is a movement not only not ready for prime time, it represents what it is against better then it articulates what it is for.
While I agree with your sentiment about the tea baggers, if you want to see hypocrisy you should look in the mirror, where you will see not only hypocrisy, but a face full of dishonesty as well. If you were honest with yourself and the rest of us then you would hail the Bush administration as the biggest liberal success since LBJ. He did everything your kind has been demanding for decades. There is not a single area of government that did not expand by at least half during their reign. An honest, non-partisan liberal would call him your sides best friend. Especially since Obama has so far continued with the exact same policies as Bush, to include siding with them in court over spying on American citizens, among other things. As for your Monsanto picture, that is another area of hypocrisy. You pretend that you are an enemy of big agri-business monstrosities like Monsanto, ADM, etc., yet support a party and a president who are right at this minute trying to decimate the population of the American small farmer in order to decrease competition to these same companies you supposedly dislike. All under the name of "safety." Under the Democan Party, H.R. 2749 will run thousands of small farmers out of business. Then of course their is the NAIS which Obama and friends are also pushing. So much for being for the little guy. You are as much a fraud as your Republicrat counterparts, your claims of not being a Democan notwithstanding. Actions speak louder than words and your continued support of a president and party that has shown itself to be no different than its predecessors speaks volumes.
With respect to the National Organic Program, it is my expectation that the FDA will work very closely with the NOP as it implements this bill to ensure there are no such conflicts. There is direction within the bill for the FDA to consider small farms, organic practices and conservation methods, and I trust that this will be followed. The intention of this bill is not to harm farming practices that have existed for centuries with minimal documented health risk." http://www.foodrenegade.com/hr-2749-passes-with-some-reassuring-language/ Ironic you should try to attack on this front. And it's not just because I changed the signature block last night as I do from time to time. I have many friends who like me are into organic gardening and I shop mostly at small organic heavy markets. We had been gathering signatures on petitions against the worst in this bill and by no means am I totally satisfied with all the changes in it. But the bill is not currently as bad as you say. There is more that does need to be done to it before it becomes law. I would also point out that I stopped working all aspects of industrial forestry in 1994, including on wild land fires because of the problems associated with turning the remaining healthy forest primeval into a tree farm. And this happened about the time I became a Green and became a forest activist full time for a long time. Political Party roles are open public information, and me, Michael Joseph McCarthy of Eugene, Oregon is a Pacific Green Party member, and you cover attitudes of some Democrats that caused me to change my lifelong membership in the Democratic Party. And I supported Barack Obama because my worries with the direction generally of the U.S. made it hard to get anywhere on farming and forestry issues because Smirk and Snarl had made things so dangerous for us internationally, it was hard to get people to focus on issues such as you talk about in your post and I nearly died protesting in my fall in 1998 from a tree I was climbing to banner for a demonstration planned the next day. I don't have any argument with you about the bad things in this bill, many of which have been removed, changed of modified because of problems with it. And I didn't spend the time I spent this summer at Red Barn Grocery helping table in front for petition signatures and to inform people about the problems with this bill and other legislation I am concerned with for any other reason then my concern for small organic farmers. We need more of them not less. We need to learn from their example, not to hurt them or put them out of business. Thanks for mentioning this bill by the way, I am heartened by your knowledge and concern about it. However, you are mis-informed if you think I am unaware of the problems with it and if you think I am not extremely concerned about it still.
#43. To: Ferret Mike, Hayek Fan (#40)
(Edited)
You're effin kidding me. Just WOW. And of course you assumed the pro-fascist-Statist Commie will "solve" the problem?
The closest this street agitator from Chicago comes to farming is a rare MSM update on his brother in Kenya, the one who lives in a hut and eats mud pies.
1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people. The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order. Nor will we assist, or support any such attempt to disarm the people by other government entities, either state or federal. In addition, we affirm that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military power of the people so that they will, in the last resort, have effective final recourse to arms and to the God of Hosts in the face of tyranny. Accordingly, we oppose any and all further infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In particular we oppose a renewal of the misnamed “assault-weapons” ban or the enactment of H.R. 45 (which would register and track gun owners like convicted pedophiles). 2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects -- such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons. One of the causes of the American Revolution was the use of “writs of assistance,” which were essentially warrantless searches because there was no requirement of a showing of probable cause to a judge, and the first fiery embers of American resistance were born in opposition to those infamous writs. The Founders considered all warrantless searches to be unreasonable and egregious. It was to prevent a repeat of such violations of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects that the Fourth Amendment was written. We expect that sweeping warrantless searches of homes and vehicles, under some pretext, will be the means used to attempt to disarm the people. 3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal. One of the causes of the American Revolution was the denial of the right to jury trial, the use of admiralty courts (military tribunals) instead, and the application of the laws of war to the colonists. After that experience, and being well aware of the infamous Star Chamber in English history, the Founders ensured that the international laws of war would apply only to foreign enemies, not to the American people. Thus, the Article III Treason Clause establishes the only constitutional form of trial for an American, not serving in the military, who is accused of making war on his own nation. Such a trial for treason must be before a civilian jury, not a tribunal. The international laws of war do not trump our Bill of Rights. We reject as illegitimate any such claimed power, as did the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1865). Any attempt to apply the laws of war to American civilians, under any pretext, such as against domestic “militia” groups the government brands “domestic terrorists,” is an act of war and an act of treason. 4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor. One of the causes of the American Revolution was the attempt “to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power” by disbanding the Massachusetts legislature and appointing General Gage as “military governor.” The attempt to disarm the people of Massachusetts during that martial law sparked our Revolution. Accordingly, the power to impose martial law – the absolute rule over the people by a military officer with his will alone being law – is nowhere enumerated in our Constitution. Further, it is the militia of a state and of the several states that the Constitution contemplates being used in any context, during any emergency within a state, not the standing army. The imposition of martial law by the national government over a state and its people, treating them as an occupied enemy nation, is an act of war. Such an attempted suspension of the Constitution and Bill of Rights voids the compact with the states and with the people. 5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union. In response to the obscene growth of federal power and to the absurdly totalitarian claimed powers of the Executive, upwards of 20 states are considering, have considered, or have passed courageous resolutions affirming states rights and sovereignty. Those resolutions follow in the honored and revered footsteps of Jefferson and Madison in their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and likewise seek to enforce the Constitution by affirming the very same principles of our Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights that we Oath Keepers recognize and affirm. Chief among those principles is that ours is a dual sovereignty system, with the people of each state retaining all powers not granted to the national government they created, and thus the people of each state reserved to themselves the right to judge when the national government they created has voided the compact between the states by asserting powers never granted. Upon the declaration by a state that such a breach has occurred, we will not obey orders to force that state to submit to the national government. 6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. One of the causes of the American Revolution was the blockade of Boston, and the occupying of that city by the British military, under martial law. Once hostilities began, the people of Boston were tricked into turning in their arms in exchange for safe passage, but were then forbidden to leave. That confinement of the residents of an entire city was an act of war. Such tactics were repeated by the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto, and by the Imperial Japanese in Nanking, turning entire cities into death camps. Any such order to disarm and confine the people of an American city will be an act of war and thus an act of treason. 7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. Mass, forced internment into concentration camps was a hallmark of every fascist and communist dictatorship in the 20th Century. Such internment was unfortunately even used against American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II. Whenever a government interns its own people, it treats them like an occupied enemy population. Oppressive governments often use the internment of women and children to break the will of the men fighting for their liberty – as was done to the Boers, to the Jewish resisters in the Warsaw Ghetto, and to the Chechens, for example. Such a vile order to forcibly intern Americans without charges or trial would be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason, regardless of the pretext used. We will not commit treason, nor will we facilitate or support it.”NOT on Our Watch!” 8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war. During the American Revolution, the British government enlisted the aid of Hessian mercenaries in an attempt to subjugate the rebellious American people. Throughout history, repressive regimes have enlisted the aid of foreign troops and mercenaries who have no bonds with the people. Accordingly, as the militia of the several states are the only military force contemplated by the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, for domestic keeping of the peace, and as the use of even our own standing army for such purposes is without such constitutional support, the use of foreign troops and mercenaries against the people is wildly unconstitutional, egregious, and an act of war. We will oppose such troops as enemies of the people and we will treat all who request, invite, and aid those foreign troops as the traitors they are. 9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever. One of the causes of the American Revolution was the seizure and forfeiture of American ships, goods, and supplies, along with the seizure of American timber for the Royal Navy, all in violation of the people’s natural right to their property and to the fruits of their labor. The final spark of the Revolution was the attempt by the government to seize powder and cannon stores at Concord. Deprivation of food has long been a weapon of war and oppression, with millions intentionally starved to death by fascist and communist governments in the 20th Century alone. Accordingly, we will not obey or facilitate orders to confiscate food and other essential supplies from the people, and we will consider all those who issue or carry out such orders to be the enemies of the people. 10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances. There would have been no American Revolution without fiery speakers and writers such as James Otis, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, and Sam Adams “setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” you define that as rightwing? i don't understand how any true patriotic American could not be fully supportive of the OathKeepers.
The Bill was passed in the HOR on Jul 29, 2009 and according to the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, it is still a very dangerous bill which will have extreme negative consequences upon the small farmers of the nation due to the vagueness of the wording and the FDA's ability to interpret this vagueness in whatever manner it chooses. As you know, the FDA has a history of being a bought and paid for organ of both the pharmaceutical and agri-business companies. And I supported Barack Obama because my worries with the direction generally of the U.S. With the exception of a couple of areas, I haven't been able to see much of a difference between the two or the direction the country is heading. It seems to me that Obamaphiles are so eager to get nationalized health care passed that they are willing to to overlook that which they complained most loudly about prior to the election, i.e, the loss of civil liberties and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. All of a sudden neither of these issues are important and supposed die hard groups like Code Pink are now even making weak excuses to justify them.
By the way, my comments to you were in no way meant as an attack. I wasn't attacking you at all. Attacking you would be calling you names. I've read what other have posted to you in the past and THAT is attacking you. While I have indeed lost my temper and responded to people in such a way, it is pretty rare and I do not believe I have ever done that to you, in this thread or any other. While I do throw a cuss word or two around, I try real hard not to attack people. Sometimes I fail. Most of the time I do not. I was merely pointing out to you what I consider to be your own hypocrisy.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestTea partiers turn on GOP leadership
#15. To: farmfriend (#14)
#16. To: Eric Stratton (#15)
#19. To: farmfriend (#16)
#32. To: Ferret Mike, all (#19)
(Edited)
I'm not impressed with the hypocrisy of the tea bag wans.
#40. To: Hayek Fan (#32)
"The bill before us includes important language that would exempt from registration and from fees on-farm processors who sell more than half of their product by value directly to consumers or who process grain for sale to other farms. I believe these two provisions go a long way to satisfying the kinds of concerns being expressed. However, I realize there are other small farms or small local processors who will not fit under these exemptions who may face a hardship and I promise to work with my colleagues to address these concerns as the bill moves into conference.
Replies to Comment # 40. I supported Barack Obama because my worries with the direction generally of the U.S. made it hard to get anywhere on farming and forestry issues...
#45. To: Ferret Mike (#40)
I supported Barack Obama because my worries with the direction generally of the U.S. made it hard to get anywhere on farming and forestry issues...
#51. To: Ferret Mike (#40)
Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey Recognizing that we each swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that we are guardians of the Republic, of the principles in our Declaration of Independence, and of the rights of our people, we affirm and declare the following:
#68. To: Ferret Mike (#40)
But the bill is not currently as bad as you say.
#72. To: Ferret Mike (#40)
Ironic you should try to attack on this front.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 40.